Skip Navigation

United States

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 4

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2019-2021

Action Plan 4

  • Number of Commitments: 8
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

United States joined OGP in 2011. They are currently implementing 8 commitments from their 2019-2021 action plan.

This action plan features commitments related to open data, public participation, and access to information.


Contact

Point of Contact

Philip Ashlock General Services Administration philip.ashlock@gsa.gov

Commitments


Resources

Click column headers to sort or use the search box to filter by year, title, document type and file format.

  1. Access to Justice Offices Leading on Justice in OGP

    2021, Resource, Web page

  2. Case Study (2014): Promoting Innovation through International Collaboration in the USA

    2014, Research Product, Web page

  3. Early Results of Open Government Partnership Initiatives (2018)

    2018, Research Product, Web page

  4. Let the Sunshine In: An Assessment of the OGP

    2016, Research Product, Web page

  5. OGP Letter – United States – December 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  6. OGP Report Card – United States (2017)

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  7. Seize the Moment: Reviving the U.S. OGP Process with the new Biden Administration

    2021, Research Product, Web page

  8. The State of Open Government in the U.S. – A Comparative Empirical Analysis of U.S. Performance under NAP3 Relative to U.S.-NAP2 and OECD Peers

    2019, Research Product, Web page

  9. United States – Action Plan Delay (2017)

    2017, Letter, Web page

  10. United States – Cohort Shift Letter – January 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  11. United States – Contrary to Process Letter (March 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  12. United States – First National Action Plan – 2011-2013

    2011, Action Plan, Web page

  13. United States – Government Response to Contrary to Process Letter (April 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  14. United States – Notification of Late Action Plan (Procedural Review) – January 2019

    2019, Letter, Web page

  15. United States 2017 Late SAR Letter – February 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  16. United States Action Plan 2015-2017

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  17. United States Action Plan 2019-2021

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  18. United States Design Report 2019-2021

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  19. United States Design Report 2019–2021 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  20. United States End-of-Term IRM Report 2015-2017

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  21. United States End-of-Term Report 2013-2015

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  22. United States End-of-Term Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  23. United States Final Self-Assessment on Second Action Plan 2013-2015

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  24. United States First Progress Report 2011-2013

    2013, IRM Report, Web page

  25. United States Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  26. United States Mid-Term Report 2015-2017

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  27. United States Progress Report 2013-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  28. United States SC Application Letter

    2014, Letter, Web page

  29. United States Second Action Plan 2013-2015

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  30. United States, Midterm Self-Assessment Report, 2013-15

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  31. United States’ Self-Assessment Report

    2013, Self Assessment, Web page

  32. USA Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2015-2017

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  33. What’s in a Name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven OGP members

    2017, Research Product, Web page


Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
6
0
2
Action Plan 3
6
2
4
Action Plan 4

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
2
7

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 4

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Anti-Corruption

Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Civic Space

Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Open Policy Making

Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Access to Information

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Fiscal Openness

Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Recent Posts

Faces of Open Gov – Youth Collective

Faces of Open Government: The Open Gov Youth Collective

In celebration of International Youth Day, we sat down with five open government champions from the Open Gov Youth Collective to hear about why engaging youth in open government work is critical for moving the needle towards more transparent, accountable…

GEF Illustration banner

Meaningfully Committing to Gender Equality

The Generation Equality Forum (GEF) inspired a collective 40 billion dollars dedicated to accelerating gender equality worldwide, programmatic commitments...

casey-horner-sQIsk1ceA8s-unsplash

Toyota and the Anti-Democracy Caucus

Last week, Toyota was found to be the largest donor to 37 anti-democratic legislators who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 United States election...

Show More
Open Government Partnership